Why do people still support Bush?

I have a simple question for all of you who seem to think that those of us who have, or continue to, supported the current president. Why is
supporting the President, whomever it is, morally treasonable? No one, least of all me, advocated or advocates sevile support of the President if,
and I say if, he is up to no good. I don't particularly like the man, but I have seen no evidence of no goodness.

If you think he's up to no good, prove it, and I'll help mount the recall effort to get him removed. It's hard to do, yes, but if you think about
it, a recall effort should be hard.

But back to topic.

Morally treasonable to suport the President right or wrong? I'm guessing your emphesis is on the wrong part? Prove to his supporters that he's
wrong, or doing wrong, and you'd see the suport dry up. There is very little of the servile in the support of the President. Seemingless groundless
accusations do not prove no goodness. Nor the fact that you disagree with certain aspects of domestic and/or foriegn policy. I disagree with many
things the current administration is doing, or has done. That's why I didn't vote for him the last go 'round. My guy lost, Mr. Bush is my
President, like him or not, and I will continue to support his efforts, not blindly, as many seem to think, nor in any way servile. He was fairly
elected, twice in fact, to be the leader of our nation. You don't like him? Fine. Get someone better to run the next time.

Just as an aside. If you knew Gallopinghordes like I do, servile is just about the last word you'd ever use to describe her

I quoted Roosevelt to respond to the following comment by galloping horses:

As a matter of fact I didn't vote for Clinton either time he ran but once he won the election I supported him as my President as is right and
proper.

My contention is that you should only support the president if you think he is doing what is right. Clearly, many people think president Bush is
screwing up, but they still have the mindset of, "Well, he's the president, so I guess I have to support him." I disagree completely with this
idea. I wasn't explicitly accusing Bush of anything, just disagreeing with the idea that someone deserves our support simply because they have some
title in front of their name.

It's within all of our powers to choose the candidate of our choice. It's called voting, work for your candidate of choice, who knows you might be
the one to make the difference between winning and losing for your candidate. Unless of course, you aren't an American citizen, in which case buzz
off

(just kidding).

Seriously, you can, and do have power to foment the changes you obviously feel are neccessary. You, and the millions like you, have an enourmous
amount of power, but only if you are willing to work at it. It won't be easy, it'll be a long tough slog through out, but it's doable. I may, or
may not, agree with your ideas. Then again, who knows...you might be right, and I might be wrong. I am intellectually honest enough to admit that.
I am willing to listen to ideas, its when it begins to sound like ranting and raving that I turn off my ears. Baseless accusations go nowhere with
me, and with many others.

I still may disagree with you, but I will have the common curtousey to listen. I ask only that you do the same.

Gallopinghordes thoughts on supporting the President jibe very closely with my own, I disagree with many things he does, and has done. I choose to
register my displeasure with him in the voters booth, and I have. Undercutting him, or any other President, serves no one. I felt the same way about
Mr. Clinton, Mr. Reagan, Mr. Carter, et al.; they cannot do the very difficult job they've got to do if they cannot count on our support. If I am
displeased with their job performance, I will find another that I can support. Does this clarify it any more for you?

Originally posted by Rock Lobster
Yes, I'm eligible to vote, but I'm not able to influence who the DNC or RNC chooses to run for president.

Yes you are able to influence. Primaries are the easiest way to get your point across, hardly anyone votes in them. You can make a big impact in
primary voting by just turning out the vote for your particular candidate. For example here in Michigan 163,769 people voted in the Democratic
caucuses out of 7,164,047 registred voters. Thats not to say you wont face an uphill battle if the big power brokers are behind another candidate,
but primaries are the easiest way to score an upset.

You can influence others with a strong argument that may lead to them changing their vote or not vote at all. I am pretty sure I have debated some
people and got them to change their votes on a number of issues both local and national.

Absolutely, Pavil. Primaries and party conventions at the local level are where the changes really take place. That's where the real work gets
done. It is tough work, and often thankless, but hey if you enjoy a good fight that's the place to go.

You have no power only if you allow yourself to have no power. Yes, you need allies, but if your cause is just...allies will find you.

Yes, I agree that if enough people rally around a cause, they can have an impact. However, I am not able to single-handedly "get someone better" to
run for president in 2008. Anyway, that wasn't the point of my original argument. The main thing I was saying was that I don't think it's right to
support the president just because he's the president. If someone is of the opinion that the president's actions are detrimental to the country, it
is well within their rights to oppose him (or her if Hillary gets elected lol). This would be a patriotic action in my opinion because the individual
is acting in what he/she feels is the best interest of the country.

To an extent I understand what you are saying. However, to try and stymie the President's agenda at every turn simply because you disagree with it is
hardly productive for the country as a whole. Democrats lost the election and the President did/does have some sort of mandate from the people. Just
because your candidate lost the election, doesn't mean your throw the gameboard up and go home.

I understand that they don't have control of committees and therefore have a hard time getting ideas/bills presented. The one thing I have not really
heard from the Democrats are compromises to get things working and done. They seem more interested in having Bush fail than the country succeed.
For example, Medicare and Social Security are long range looming problems with the Baby Boomers starting to use those programs. Both parties will
have to bring ideas to the conference table and hammer out something. Gridlock accomplishes nothing.

I agree. I don't think it's right to oppose the president at every turn simply out of spite or because of a political agenda. If you feel the
president is genuinely hurting the country with his actions, that is the time to speak out in my opinion. There is definitely a line between acting
from your true convictions and acting for strictly political motives.

Originally posted by Rock Lobster
@ gallopinghordes - "That we are to stand by the President right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the
American public." - Theodore Roosevelt

Ok scamper, I've never been called servile in my life and since you don't know a thing about I
suggest stop the name calling. As far as being unpatriotic once again suggest you stop judging me or anyone else. When Mr. Bush leaves office who
pray tell are you going to blame for all the evil in the world? I'm astonished that individuals can't disagree on this thread without resorting to
insults and name calling.

Originally posted by Rock Lobster
I agree. I don't think it's right to oppose the president at every turn simply out of spite or because of a political agenda. If you feel the
president is genuinely hurting the country with his actions, that is the time to speak out in my opinion. There is definitely a line between acting
from your true convictions and acting for strictly political motives.

Then Rock Lobster you start at the local level and work for change.
You're right you may not be able to change the candidates for the 2008 election but there will be elections after that. Why not run for a local
office yourself and start change that way? Campaign for the person of your choice encourage people to turn out for elections talk to people in a calm
and reasonable manner to share your views. If you do those things you may find that people will listen to you and may even agree with you. But, on
the other hand if all you are willing to do is rant and call names then you are right you won't be able to influence any one. We do have a great
deal of power if we choose to work hard and more importantly work together if enough like minded people work they can do great things. To say you
have no power is wrong because you certainly do. I

In an aside I get very tired of people insulting other and the name calling that seems to happen if you want to share your views in a reasonable
manner I will be glad to listen but not when you engage in judgemental name calling. Like it or not I will not blindly oppose the president just
because I don't agree with all of his policies. When I disagree I send emails or call my elected reps yes including the White House, it may not
change what they are going to do but at least I have expressed my displeasure as we all should they work for us and it's always a good idea to remind
them of that little fact.

One thing that I note in this thread is that any support of Bush is quickly followed by an attack on Democrats. So are Bush supporters defined by what
they are not? Are many Bush supporters just angry people who need to become partisan and attack something? Do they have a seige mentality? If so, what
are they scared of?

Another point. This whole 'support my president, right or wrong' is obviously irrational. A friend of mine was explaining to me a while back
that Americans are more idealistic about their presidents than the British are about their Primeministers. They afford him/her more respect. I said to
him, "How can Americans be idealistic after Nixon?'

Gallopinghordes, I say again, Would you support Hitler if he was your President? I predict you'll continue to avoid ansering that question
because it forces you to face up to the failure in your reasoning. And you'll respond with aggresion. Or vanish.

Originally posted by rizla
One thing that I note in this thread is that any support of Bush is quickly followed by an attack on Democrats. So are Bush supporters defined by what
they are not? Are many Bush supporters just angry people who need to become partisan and attack something? Do they have a siege mentality? If so, what
are they scared of?
[edit on 14-6-2006 by rizla]

No Rizla, I merely get upset when others state facts that are easily proven false.... look back in the thread to see what I mean. You were the one who
was namecalling, did you expect others to just take that in stride?

Those who seem to dislike Bush seem to take it to a personal level with the man. You seem to hate him more than his policies, a very unhealthy reverse
cult of personality in my opinion. I mean many Bush haters hated him before he even became President.

I happen to like Bush's agenda more than any Democratic one that has been presented lately. Is all of it to my liking? Probably not, but on the most
important things, I agree with Bush and more importantly, the Republican party more. Education, Defense, Iraq, the War on Terror, Immigration,
Medicare, Moral matters and even Social Security Reform ...ect, I like the Bush/Republican ideas more that the Democratic side's offerings.

How does that make me an attacker/stupid/partisan/ignorant? I don't go characterizing Democrats/anti-Bush people as ignorant for their beliefs, why
do many on the opposite side feel the need to ridicule those they disagree with? Want to protest the War? Go ahead. Want to voice your opinion about
the Patriot Act or wiretapping stepping on civil rights? It's your right to. Hey, you can even disagree with me and I won't take it personally OK?
Just give me the same respect for my views as well. That's not too much to ask, is it?

The next time your party gets in the Oval Office, you get to make most of the laws and final decisions, Supreme Court nominations ect., and I'll
probably be the one complaining...... but I won't overly insult the opposition. I'll just gear up for the next election.

I like to support Bush just because it annoys a lot of very annoying people.

More seriously here is why I support him:

1. he is not the most powerful man in the world and does not run the world
2. he is not the most powerful man in the US and he does not call all the shots
3. he did not run 911 counter to many beliefs
4. I actually believe he is a Christian
5. he has the guts to see tough decisions through and not cut and run when things get tough
6. he has a vision for the US that is more US centric than the view of the US that most of his foes have (globalistic it appears).
7. I think a lot of his politics and moves are geared to deal with the coming alien problem that we will have to face

Originally posted by rizla
One thing that I note in this thread is that any support of Bush is quickly followed by an attack on Democrats. So are Bush supporters defined by what
they are not? Are many Bush supporters just angry people who need to become partisan and attack something? Do they have a seige mentality? If so, what
are they scared of?

Another point. This whole 'support my president, right or wrong' is obviously irrational. A friend of mine was explaining to me a while back
that Americans are more idealistic about their presidents than the British are about their Primeministers. They afford him/her more respect. I said to
him, "How can Americans be idealistic after Nixon?'

Gallopinghordes, I say again, Would you support Hitler if he was your President? I predict you'll continue to avoid ansering that question
because it forces you to face up to the failure in your reasoning. And you'll respond with aggresion. Or vanish.

[edit on 14-6-2006 by rizla]

Rizla at the riskof being rude I really feel you yourself need to calm down. I didn't notice anyone attacking
the Dems for your information I don't believe we Americans are idealistic about our presidents most of us know them to be people who are trying to do
a tough job the best way they can and I can respect that whether you can or not. You constant challenge to me as to whether I would support Hitler is
absolutley stupid which is quite surprising since you don't appear to be stupid. You are comparing two completly different people so here and now
please be statisfied no I think Hitler is most likly roasting in a very special part of hell for his actions. I do not compare Bush to Hitler but you
scamper off and have a great time doing so.

Rizla. Several people have told you their reasons for supporting the current president. In none of the answers have we called names or been all that
defensive. You, and mostly you alone, have been doing the name calling. You are the one comparing Mr. Bush to Adolph Hitler, the comparison is not
valid by the bye.

Why did you start the thread if all you wanted to do was start a flame war with us? We've given you our answers and received nothing but disrespect
by way of reply from you. If we "vanish" it will be because of our utter disgust at your seeming unwillingness to have a civil discourse. Not
because we are unwilling to defend our positions.

A good question, but not a pertinent one. The point was that Bush's winning the 2004 election (and really winning it, unlike what happened in 2000
-- unless there really was vote fraud in Ohio) does NOT show that he has the support of the majority of Americans.

THAT so many people didn't vote is the pertinent fact in this argument.

Originally posted by gallopinghordes
You constant challenge to me as to whether I would support Hitler is absolutley stupid which is quite surprising since you don't appear to be stupid.
You are comparing two completly different people so here and now please be statisfied no I think Hitler is most likly roasting in a very special part
of hell for his actions. I do not compare Bush to Hitler but you scamper off and have a great time doing so.

You are avoiding the question again. I am not comparing Hitler to Bush. I am asking you a straight question: Would you support hitler if he were
your president? A simple yes or no will suffice.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.